A/HRC/28/65 human rights; and the OECD Guidelines call on enterprises to respect human rights. In 2011, a group of experts in international law and human rights adopted the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provide that States are responsible for violations of economic, social and cultural rights by non-State actors, including corporations in cases where these nonState actors act under the instructions or direct control of the State, or are empowered by the State to exercise elements of governmental authority. 62. The Guiding Principles are considered the most authoritative statement of the human rights responsibilities of corporations and corresponding State duties adopted at the United Nations level. The Guiding Principles offer a noncommittal voice on extraterritoriality but are rapidly developing and cited in established international standards, such as the revised version of the 2011 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the updated International Finance Corporation Performance Standards; the European Union has also cited the Guiding Principles in its latest Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, and many national governments are recognizing the need to regulate in the area of business and human rights. These rules that place obligations on corporations can develop out of the complex interplay between various States and non-State systems and this multidimensional aspects give them legitimacy. 63. The OECD guidelines’ implementation mechanism, the “National Contact Points”, emphasize due diligence responsibility for human rights. There have been more than 100 cases to date, in which different human rights organizations had approached the National Contact Points alleging violations of the guidelines by corporations and thus violations of human rights law.66 The Maastricht Principles are also an example of progressive development efforts of international law. A range of academic experts and nongovernmental organizations endorsed the Maastricht Principles in September 2011, and they have been acknowledged in paragraph 61 of the Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, which were adopted by consensus by the Human Rights Council (resolution 21/11) in September 2012. 64. All of these mechanisms have the common of preventing and addressing human rights abuse by business enterprises but fail to provide sufficient monitoring mechanisms. The voluntary nature of soft law instruments is generally not sufficient to protect human rights and thus fails to close the existing “accountability gap” of extraterritorial responsibilities.67 However, one should not be too quick to rule out categorically the legal applicability of such declarations just because they are of a voluntary nature. Law is not limited to what States set forth. Legal norms can also be formed in society. To treat the concept of law as being entirely dependent on the State is to overlook the unique nature of social norms.68 65. The legally binding nature of voluntary rules may also emerge with the help of national law. Voluntary standards can often be enforced in accordance with competition or consumer laws, where they include relevant representations to the consumer. Thus, a corporation’s non-adherence to its own codes can be enforced before courts in the country of the corporation’s headquarters.69 66. Transnational campaigns by civil society are also important in developing good practice. For example, Oxfam’s “Behind the Brands” campaign called upon TNCs to stop land grabbing. As a result PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Nestle responded by committing to a 66 67 68 69 18 Details available from http://oecdwatch.org/cases. Smita Narula, “The Right to Food”, pp. 752–753. Langford et al., Global Justice, State Duties, p. 61. Ibid., p. 62.